Granath v Wright case entered the second week on Monday, the last authoritative expert witness appeared in court, and the lawyer of Magnus "Hodgonaut" Granath, the appellant, gradually argued.

On the sixth day of the trial, KPMG brought a complete set of authoritative expert testimony on Friday: the defendant of the case, Dr. Crawford Wright, brought authoritative expert witnesses from BDO and CYFOR enterprises, who interpreted the documents reviewed by KPMG in the process of preparing the authoritative expert report. The three authoritative experts all expressed their concern about the deficiencies in KPMG's report. The most important thing is that the interface test used by the enterprise in studying documents has no key points.

As a result, BDO and CYFOR could not copy the process used by KPMG in the study, and their analysis did form surprising conclusions, which conflict with the results obtained by KPMG. For example, KPMG reported that one of the files included anomalies, namely the Bitcoin white paper group that was uploaded to SSRN. However, the checksums of the text documents explained by KPMG are different from those of the documents that can be downloaded from SSRN at this stage. On Friday, it meant that Halvor Manshaus of Dr. Wright's Schjodt Company would exert pressure on KPMG professionals from then on, but he did not express such differences.

Thomas Dahl, the first BDO witness, also said that KPMG's view on the control of documents was too obvious. When analyzing documents in this way, it was important to pay close attention to pity and guilt. He pointed out that KPMG's core is usually to look for signs of control.

He warned that, for databases from 2008 or earlier versions of documents, we should form an opinion, just like many documents in this case: the chain of storage and the chain of evidence are crucial here, just as they are for any other type of direct evidence. Text documents may be transferred from one device to another, and from the computer operating system to the computer operating system. They may be changed intentionally or inadvertently by a random number of people, and may be inadvertently affected by other program processes (such as anti-virus software).

The court could not tell how this testimony was mixed with KPMG's testimony on Friday. Apart from calling these documents as manipulated documents, KPMG did not find anyone who is likely to carry out the hypothetical operation and for what reason. We can learn from this case and the past cases involving Dr. Wright that there are many documents related to Dr. Wright's history as a Chinese doctor. Not all documents are made by him, nor are all documents true and effective. It is not news to say that millions of pages of relevant evidence in this case are controlled documents. In addition, the People's Court heard that there were some differences in KPMG's report, so it was hard to see how much harm he would do, especially considering Dr. Wright's witness parade last week.

With the testimony of the last authoritative expert, the trial entered a later stage: the debate was completed. Granat's lawyer ran first. The chief lawyer of Granat, rjan Salvesen Haukaas, truthfully stated the case: Dr. Wright is using the legal norms to verify that you are a Zhongben Zuozhi.

Hornos said: "The problem that the court will decide is not whether (Crawford Wright) is Sato. The court must determine whether he has the right to receive compensation from Granat.".

He said that Dr. Wright persisted in expressing herself to a certain extent with the help of witnesses, who can prove her behavior in the years before the launch of BTC. He visited every witness the court solicited last week, such as Stefan Matthews. Haukaas indicated that Dr. Wright's identity as Satoshi Nakamoto was not only reflected in politics, but also in his sense of honor. For example, he testified with Max Lynam's cousin that he and his father were in Dr. Wright's request in 2008: Haukaas accused Lynam of inappropriately believing that Dr. Wright created blockchain technology and BTC.

According to Hornos, such witnesses should not be highly valued by the court. On the contrary, he said that the lack of such important witnesses as Gavin Andresen should be called the danger signal of Dr. Wright's case.

Granat's lawyer will continue to release his final argument on Wednesday, which will be the last day of Granat v. Wright. The contradiction of schedule distribution means that there will be no trial on Tuesday.